Poking the fate bear - Why is women in gaming such a hot button topic?

I also take umbrage at the crack about Nerf fights in the office. That is NOT the kind of "woman friendly" environment that's being discussed. I love Nerf fights. I don't so much love being followed to my car when I leave for lunch by someone I explicitly said "no" to when they asked me out for lunch, having my ass grabbed, being talked down to, or being expected to make the coffee (unless I drank the last cup, in which case I totally will).

Stalking? Ass grabbing? film and document then.. Hello early retirement!

As for the Nerf fights that is "you" and that is the problem. It is not everyone. If one guy doesn't like it, so what. If the 1 woman in the office doesn't like it then it is a gender thing. If one of the two women in the office doesn't like it then 50% of the women don't like it and it is a gender thing. Accidentally hit a woman in the boob with a nerf dart instead of her eye that you were aiming at and that can be a law suit. Law suits are very scary to the bottom line. Corporate sexual harassment training these days is "Do not look them in the chest, do not look them in the eyes, Do not look them in the shoes, do not look at them at all, do not compliment them., do not talk to them, all these things could be actionable and you will be fired!"After all the basic "treat them like you would any other human" is said and done, things that are just disliked end up in the line of fire.

I also take umbrage at the crack about Nerf fights in the office. That is NOT the kind of "woman friendly" environment that's being discussed. I love Nerf fights. I don't so much love being followed to my car when I leave for lunch by someone I explicitly said "no" to when they asked me out for lunch, having my ass grabbed, being talked down to, or being expected to make the coffee (unless I drank the last cup, in which case I totally will).

Stalking? Ass grabbing? film and document then.. Hello early retirement!

Wow, here I thought these things were profound violations of a person's physical and emotional space, when in fact it's pretty much like winning the lottery! Who knew?

5. Any male game players who say anything positive about female gamers should not be immediately dismissed as a "white knight"6. Acknowledge that not all female gaming conversations represent the entire community of female gamers. Just like not all male gamers are sexist assholes, not all female gamers represent the group in the most positive light

#5 insinuates that gamers as a whole are assholes who turn on 'white knights' and #6 states the opposite. I see a lot of contradiction in your subtext.

Quote:

1. Do better research into who is playing their games and why they play them

Sad thing is I bet they do. Hence the big boobed bimbos

Quote:

3. Take a hard look into hiring practices to ensure there is no gender bias4. Take a hard took into how women are treated in the workplace5. Proactively encourage women to join their companies at all levels by establishing a women friendly environment and publicizing it

These kind of assertions border on accusation of sexism in the industry. I work in software (non-gaming) and while it's male-dominated it's mainly due to who has the skills not blatant sexism. This is more of an overall failure of our society at seeding scientific interest in young girls. Improvements there will take 15 years to see the effect. Companies need to show a friendly environment, singling out friendly to women is silly. They make up half the population, any place that has to say 'we treat women as equals' either doesn't or has some guilt complex.

Quote:

7. Have women speakers at gaming events that talk about real relevant topics

This is forcing equality. If women are your best/most applicable speakers then have them. Having women on stage for the sake of having women on stage is discrimination in itself and does nothing to further equality.

Quote:

8. Are you a female that works in the gaming industry? Be loud. Be pushy. It sucks for you but you are in a position to make a difference. I want to know who you are.

Rah rah rah. The women I work with don't think it sucks to be a female developer. They don't want to be special, they want to write code. They're as loud and pushy as their personalities dictate.

Quote:

1. Get more girls into STEM2. Acknowledge that a lot of female empowerment is extremely new and will take time to totally change our perceptions as a culture 3. Acknowledge that language matters. A little thought into how you communicate goes a long way.4. Acknowledge that different cultures have different views of gender roles and may change at different paces and in different ways

For sure. This is a cultural/societal problem, male dominated industries (gaming isn't the only one) are the manifestations of that and singling them out is non-productive and destructive at worst.

I have yet to see any examples of how involving more women and girls would change things in the industry.

Sims and Zynga would be examples.

I think this might be part of why this topic makes a lot of people (current gamers) uncomfortable. Many people out there don't want their games to change. I think there's a fear out there that having more women involved will change things they love in ways they don't want. I think they are worried that their favorite FPS or ARPG or whatever will become more "girlie", as is, more like what they think Sims and Zynga are all about. This is why I'm trying to understand what having more women involved MEANS for game development. I don't think it'll mean the Simsifying of games, I think it'll mean something new and interesting. I just don't know what that will be.

As it turns out logging into Kickstarter today I noticed the update from Ouya has some relevant information:

Nice to see Kim Swift is a developer that they are excited about as well they should be. It also seems that Ouya is not a name that you associate with being female friendly but yet it looks like they are without being overt or weird about it. I backed them because I thought it was neat and I was into Kickstarter at the time. Hopefully this is what the future of gaming is like. Starting out with smaller ventures like this one that will hopefully trickle up to the bigger guys.

I also found this. Which is a little old but I am not an academic and so a lot of my information comes from more organic sources or what google can tell me.

I also take umbrage at the crack about Nerf fights in the office. That is NOT the kind of "woman friendly" environment that's being discussed. I love Nerf fights. I don't so much love being followed to my car when I leave for lunch by someone I explicitly said "no" to when they asked me out for lunch, having my ass grabbed, being talked down to, or being expected to make the coffee (unless I drank the last cup, in which case I totally will).

Stalking? Ass grabbing? film and document then.. Hello early retirement!

Wow, here I thought these things were profound violations of a person's physical and emotional space, when in fact it's pretty much like winning the lottery! Who knew?

Ah, you must be in a different country.In the US a monster law suit can be an easy retirement. Being sexually assaulted at work is an easy win (unless you are working with a military contractor). These are so popular that people will even make up frivolous law suits. When in American and in doubt, sue!

Show me on the doll where even that arbitrary description requires "reverse discrimination".

Gee, I don't know... How about the fact that non-whites will be chosen over whites better suited for a position in order to fill a minority quota?

XaiaX wrote:

I'm sorry I broke your argument by posting the actual text that made the term well known.

Ask pretty much anyone what the term means, and they'll give you something similar to the Wikipedia definition. Why you are choosing the non-common definition and basing your argument on that fact alone is beyond me.

XaiaX wrote:

(Did you know that Richard Nixon studied racism in the US and concluded that it wasn't a problem that individual action caused or could solve, and that the problems and thus the solution were systemic in nature? F'n NIXON.)

This has nothing to do with me, our argument, or the situation at hand.

XaiaX wrote:

Quote:

It simply means that two wrongs don't make a right, but I know you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said to score some cheap points.

You're the one who invented the idea that "take deliberate action to make sure you're not acting in a biased manner" means "discriminate against white dudes".

No, you're the one who is now arbitrarily using an uncommon definition of the term, putting words into my mouth, and then basing an argument off that.

You're tilting at windmills.

XaiaX wrote:

Here's why comparing it to "two wrongs don't make a right" is wrong and bad. If you have an unbalanced situation, you can't balance it by adding to all sides. You have to add to some more than others.

The problem is that white people, especially white dudes, see the lessening of the gap as a direct attack on them, because their unearned advantage diminishes.

What did white landowners lose when any white man gained the ability to vote?What did white men lose when other men gained the ability to vote?White did men lose when women gained the ability to vote?

They lost power, but only because "their" power existed due to the oppression of others.

It is literally the exact same situation we see with gay marriage now. What do whiny straight assholes lose if people can marry someone of the same legally accepted gender? Fuck all! Except the power differential created by those people not being allowed to marry.

That's why people say "reverse discrimination". There's a tradition to the discrimination, and removing it is seen as an attack because it erases a power differential. It lessens power, and that's the problem. That's why people get upset.

If employers are less likely to hire women, it's that many more jobs available and that much easier for a man to get a job. Without that bias, the man has to compete more than he wanted to or expected to. This is why men get pissed off at women working with them, they were raised to feel entitled to that job, and it's no longer an entitlement, it's something they have to earn.

So they rage.

Again, tilting at windmills. I didn't say these things, and you're not arguing against my points anymore. I know you would like to imagine I'm the big, bad mysognist/racist/whatever here, but I'm not. If you go back and read my arguments, instead of what you have imagined me to be, you'll find that I'm actually quite moderate.

That doesn't mean I'm not wrong, but it does mean you can't just saying 'white male privilege' and ignore me.

I think you may be confusing me with other posters. I pointed out how I thought your privilege was coloring your opinions, but I also addressed a variety of points of fact and policy. Moreover, I attempted to explain how and why privilege effects our viewpoints, in the hope of helping to illuminate the difference in thinking between the sides of this conversation.

At this point, I don't really think there's much more to be said. When the conversation devolves into being about the conversation itself, it has probably run its course.

Gee, I don't know... How about the fact that non-whites will be chosen over whites better suited for a position in order to fill a minority quota?

And you can demonstrate this with all the times it has happened such as "I heard that this one guy" and "you know that they" and "I didn't get hired because they probably" etc.

Quote:

Ask pretty much anyone what the term means, and they'll give you something similar to the Wikipedia definition. Why you are choosing the non-common definition and basing your argument on that fact alone is beyond me.

Because one of them is the actual definition and the other one is the one people with an incentive to prevent an equalized playing field have invented to convince people to oppose attempts at creating or maintaining equality.

I know what people in general mean by the term. People in general don't know what the fuck they're talking about. People in general think the US deficit is growing, and they're talking about the debt problem. They're idiots.

Quote:

No, you're the one who is now arbitrarily using an uncommon definition of the term, putting words into my mouth, and then basing an argument off that.

You're tilting at windmills.

The people that got you to think an explicit policy of attempting to avoid bias is equivalent to actively being biased against white dudes are the ones who put words in your mouth. Specifically, the words "reverse discrimination".

It's like saying that because white men went from 70% of voters to 35% of voters that women's suffrage was "reverse discrimination".

Quote:

I didn't say these things, and you're not arguing against my points anymore. I know you would like to imagine I'm the big, bad mysognist/racist/whatever here, but I'm not. If you go back and read my arguments, instead of what you have imagined me to be, you'll find that I'm actually quite moderate.

You just think you're moderate, or you're equating "average" with "moderate", which is nonsense. If you use a term like "reverse discrimination" then you're not a moderate. Reverse discrimination is like "white slavery". If you use the term, you're demonstrating a specific worldview that is not moderate.

It may be (is) common, but that doesn't make it moderate, let alone good.

Quote:

Being sexually assaulted at work is an easy win.

No it isn't. Stop making shit up. It's practically impossible to prove anything.

Or you can point to all the cases where it's obviously constantly happening.

I suspect it'll be the same list of citations as above.

You're believing the MRA nonsense of the feminazi police state where the slightest infraction towards an all powerful woman will result in life imprisonment and castigation.This is the world where Chris Brown isn't still selling records and people aren't making jokes about him beating up Rihanna and Kobe Bryant was castrated in prison simply because some woman somewhere said his name and the word 'rape' in the same sentence.

You're believing the MRA nonsense of the feminazi police state where the slightest infraction towards an all powerful woman will result in life imprisonment and castigation.This is the world where Chris Brown isn't still selling records and people aren't making jokes about him beating up Rihanna and Kobe Bryant was castrated in prison simply because some woman somewhere said his name and the word 'rape' in the same sentence.

Celebrities get forgiven for things that normal people don't all the time.

No it isn't. Stop making shit up. It's practically impossible to prove anything.

Umm. You document and film as I said. You keep a note book and copies off all your HR reports. With all that, you say you will lose in court?We have harassment training for a reason. We have web filters for a reason. The law suits happen.

Pretending that everything can be addressed in emotionless terms is one of the bigger failings that we as nerds (in particular), often fall into.

That goes against the entire notion of honest, scientific inquiry. If you cannot make your case without resorting to emotional pleas, then you have no case. I didn't become an atheist just to exchange one set of unsupported, emotionally-laden claims with another set of equally baseless ones.

Here's how this works: You and I come to the table with different opinions. If we are honest individuals seeking the truth of the matter, then those opinions will be based on reason and evidence. If not, then they will be based on emotion and dogma. Then we present our arguments and point out the others' weaknesses. If we are honest and the counterarguments are well-supported, then we will accept those weaknesses and amend our worldviews.

Here's the important thing. If you really do have the right of it, then I WANT to be proven wrong. I am by no means perfect, and I have an ego that gets in the way sometimes, same as anyone else. However, in the end, I want to have a worldview that is consistent with reality. I was not always an atheist. Nor did I always believe capital punishment and the War on Drugs to be bad policies. So what changed my mind? Arguing with honest individuals who explained not only why I was wrong, but supported their own positions with facts and reason.

The irony of this entire situation is that we really are on the same side. I agree that sexism exists. I agree that certain societal and culture forces have given me a better lot in life than some minorities. I agree that there is still much work to do, both in identifying problems and fixing them.

What I don't agree with is, in some cases, the severity of the problems being discussed and the proposed solutions to those problems. What I have a problem with is the polarizing, black-and-white, "if you're not with me 100% you're against me" positions which have already reared their ugly heads among a few of the posters in this thread. What I question are the dogma and emotion (and the corresponding jump to conclusions) which can often blind people to reality, even if they are on the right side of the argument.

Yes, they happen. And they generally turn the woman (or man) who files them into a black sheep. People lose friends, lose respect, and lose the ability to get a job in their field. If they don't end up getting enough from the lawsuit to retire (which is far from a sure thing), they will have a nearly impossible time finding a new job.

Even if 100% of these lawsuits ended up in victory, which they obviously don't, "easy win" is pretty much absurdly the opposite of what happens. What happens is your life gets turned on its head.

As many sexual harassment lawsuits as we have, do you think they represent even a modest fraction of actual incidences of sexual harassment? A casual googling:

Because of the workplace hierarchy, the sexually harassed woman is unlikely to complain. Often, she is economically and emotionally dependent on her aggressor. Moreover, the abuse is humiliating, so the victim is motivated to keep it secret. Fearful of losing her job and economic security, she keeps quiet. She also may fear retraumatization by the legal system if she seeks recourse from higher authorities. Not surprisingly then, studies have shown repeatedly that very few individuals report their experiences or lodge an official complaint. Indeed, a review of ten studies revealed that only ten to fifteen percent of women either responded assertively to or reported the harassment. More than fifty percent of victims simply do and say nothing.

Sexual harassment is a huge problem, and is absolutely not a payday, or in any way good, for the person harassed.

Pretending that everything can be addressed in emotionless terms is one of the bigger failings that we as nerds (in particular), often fall into.

That goes against the entire notion of honest, scientific inquiry. If you cannot make your case without resorting to emotional pleas, then you have no case. I didn't become an atheist just to exchange one set of unsupported, emotionally-laden claims with another set of equally baseless ones.

We are not robots. We experience the world in emotional terms. That doesn't mean we can't have rational discussion, but it does mean that a discussion of a topic in which the primary damage is emotional, in emotionless terms, is worthless. Less pay for the same work is easily quantified in emotionless terms. Being cat called when you walk down the street, leered at, told people like you aren't good at science/math, these are things that primarily deal their damage emotionally. And yes, even simply being shown twenty out of twenty people in a highly payed, highly successful line of work that interests you - all of whom are out-group, that too has an emotional impact which should not be ignored.

I was careful when I chose my words. I did not say we cannot have a rational discussion, I said we cannot discuss the issue in emotionless terms. Emotions color everything. In some places it is easy to avoid (math, science), and those of us who focus on those areas often fool ourselves into believing we are rational creatures - but we aren't. We make emotionally motivated choices, then we generate post-hoc rationalizations to convince ourselves our choices were logical.

Because it is a highly emotional issue, the most fundamentally important pre-requisite to an honest and productive discussion of the topic is to recognize our own emotional baggage, to overcome that, and to put ourselves in the shoes of those being discriminated against. To that end, addressing the emotional underpinning of an argument is at least as important as addressing its individual "logical" claims. That's why I chose to do both in my posts.

Maybe not the best place for this, but there's not a lot of better options. So here's a question I'll pose on the subject:

Our WoW guild just absorbed the core of a smaller guild to bolster our main raiding team. One of those core members is a woman. Her addition brings our core raiding team up to 4 women. The other three are just normal players; I know they're women from voice chat but they're not treated any differently than the rest of the team. New girl is very sexual, in guild chat and on voice chat, and in response a lot of the guys who have always been pretty cool with the women in the raid in the past have begun acting the part of the stereotypical horny douchebag - but only toward this new woman who appears to welcome and encourage it. Still, it's pretty blatant.

My question is, is this behavior I should sort of step up against? It makes me slightly uncomfortable. I know it bothers the one woman I'm better friends with on the team, and I'm willing to bet it makes the other two uncomfortable as well, even though they're not the target. But I'm also fairly confident new girl enjoys it, and the guys reciprocating also do. Is it a case of "live and let live"? Or should I be worried that it's fostering a hostile environment?

My question is, is this behavior I should sort of step up against? It makes me slightly uncomfortable. I know it bothers the one woman I'm better friends with on the team, and I'm willing to bet it makes the other two uncomfortable as well, even though they're not the target. But I'm also fairly confident new girl enjoys it, and the guys reciprocating also do. Is it a case of "live and let live"? Or should I be worried that it's fostering a hostile environment?

I was actually in this situation with an old clan back in the day. There was no right answer. In the end the clan leader just stepped up and banned the female from the voice comms because even after being asked to tone it down she just kept on with it. Caused a huge rift in the clan.

What is the game's culture regarding members from absorbed guilds and their expected behavior? Are they expected to conform to what is considered acceptable behaviors of the "master" guild like a completely new member would? If so, I'd suggest having someone in a position of authority within the guild speak with her, let her know that she's making the other females uncomfortable and ask her to stop/tone it down.

If the general game's culture is to have the two guild's individual cultures normalize into something between that of each individual guild then speaking to her is not out of the question. It would have to be much more of a request to tone down in that case. Either way, if any of these people have been playing for some time I'd expect them to understand generally how the cultures of two merged guilds are expected to merge. Whomever is on the "losing" side (either the existing girls have to accept something they're a bit uncomfortable with or the new girl has to accept that she will need to tone it down) should understand that is the way things are going to be.

Another possible way to go about it would be to ban the talk that makes the existing girls uncomfortable in group comms, but not to care how people talk in side comms.

It is a vulgar display of power, I can see it making one uncomfortable. Odds are she is trying to establish her place in the pecking order or is just reveling in the power. Ask the other players how they feel and deal with it if they have a problem. I power leveled BC with someone like that who was also a drama addict (as in "I'm dying of X and will not live long.."). I knew she was a man but I don't think he knew I knew. He has a good player so I just ignored the fluff.

krimhorn wrote:

let her know that she's making the other females uncomfortable and ask her to stop/tone it down.

No, no, no. That is not how you play that game. You let her know that some of the guys are uncomfortable.

Every time I see something like this pop up I feel guilty, because that's what I'm told I should feel. I have no reason to feel guilty, I'm just a) male b) Caucasian and c) heterosexual. Every time somebody is oppressed on the internet (perceived or otherwise) for any reason, I'm told I should feel guilty, so I feel guilty even (especially) if there is no way I could have any affect on the situation.

This specific situation is about how badly I treat women (because I am a man). When I try to make a list of every instance of injustice I have unleashed against the victims (women) around me, cognitive dissonance kicks in. I haven't done anything wrong, so why do I feel guilty? Maybe I've seen others doing ungood things to women. Again nothing. How can I fix what isn't broken (in my area)? Am I supposed to be buying more "things" by/for women whether I like it or not? Am I supposed to boycott things I like created for/by men?

I work IT support in a smallish company (~80) based in small communities (1k-10k pop). The corporate population is 81% female; 75% of the VPs are female. Do I think less of women because 90% of my calls come from women? No, it's fairly consistent with the population. The slight bump toward female trouble calls stems from the fact that a few of the guys come from tech backgrounds, compared to a similar number of women with technology experience, resulting in a larger percentage of tech knowledge in the smaller population. Also, men are more stubborn about asking for help. If I treated the women here the way I'm told I treat women on the internet, I wouldn't have made it past the first week.

You can write my pointless drivel off as a defense mechanism stemming from my "privileged" status, but I am having a hard time understanding why I am the problem and an even harder time figuring out how I can fix it. If I end up having a bunch of daughters I'll push them toward STEM stuff and games, but that's a big if. Also, I shouldn't be pushing them (assault), and I should respect their decisions for whichever fields they choose to pursue.

I understand that this is a cultural and not a personal problem, but a culture is just the aggregation of the beliefs and actions of its individual members. When a culture is attacked (men, America, Islam, LGBT, etc) the individuals feel as if they are being directly attacked when (mostly) they are really being caught in the crossfire. This explains (to me) the defensive lashing out when these types of issues come up.

Shockingly enough there are at least three straight (I think?) white (pretty sure?) dudes (definite) here in me, XaiaX, and vishnu (and maybe there are even more!) who manage to not feel guilty about being straight white men while somehow avoiding being unaware shitnozzles. It's like there's this "introspection" thing going on somewhere along the line.

Shockingly enough there are at least three straight (I think?) white (pretty sure?) dudes (definite) here in me, XaiaX, and vishnu (and maybe there are even more!) who manage to not feel guilty about being straight white men while somehow avoiding being unaware shitnozzles. It's like there's this "introspection" thing going on somewhere along the line.

Every time I see something like this pop up I feel guilty, because that's what I'm told I should feel.

Told by who? You shouldn't feel guilty. It isn't your fault you were born privileged. You're not responsible for that. You are only responsible for what you do with that privilege. I don't know who told you you should feel guilty, but it wasn't anybody in this thread.

Quote:

Maybe I've seen others doing ungood things to women. Again nothing. How can I fix what isn't broken (in my area)?

This I have a hard time swallowing. Maybe the company you work for has a very woman friendly corporate culture. Sure. But what about outside of work? If you never witness sexism anywhere in your life, you are either absurdly sheltered, or you have blinders on. I'd bet on the latter.

Quote:

You can write my pointless drivel off as a defense mechanism stemming from my "privileged" status, but I am having a hard time understanding why I am the problem and an even harder time figuring out how I can fix it.

Your defensiveness is unwarranted. You being a part of a privileged class isn't your fault. You are not under attack. So long as you're treating women respectfully and striving towards equality in those areas over which you have control, you have no reason to feel guilty. However, you also have no reason to dismiss the very real sexism that goes on all over the country (and world) on a daily, hourly, minutely basis, simply because you have somehow managed not to see it.

Quote:

If I end up having a bunch of daughters I'll push them toward STEM stuff and games, but that's a big if. Also, I shouldn't be pushing them (assault), and I should respect their decisions for whichever fields they choose to pursue.

Why push them towards STEM? I suppose it depends what you mean by push. Make it available to them, teach them interesting bits of math and science through games early on, but if they end up not liking it, don't continually force it on them. Whatever they do show an interest in, encourage them in that. Defying gender roles solely for the sake of defying gender roles isn't productive, and isn't a recipe for happy children.

Quote:

I understand that this is a cultural and not a personal problem, but a culture is just the aggregation of the beliefs and actions of its individual members. When a culture is attacked (men, America, Islam, LGBT, etc) the individuals feel as if they are being directly attacked when (mostly) they are really being caught in the crossfire. This explains (to me) the defensive lashing out when these types of issues come up.

Well, you've got it partially right I suppose, except that it isn't "male culture" or "men" that are being attacked. Sexist women are a problem too. Sexism in our society isn't limited to men. In fact often women are able to get away with much more overt sexism (towards other women) than men are. "Men" aren't under attack here. There is an unfortunate (but tiny) group of "man hating" feminists, but that group is almost irrelevantly small, particularly in relation to the amount of play they get as straw women for anti-feminist arguments.

You're correct on the mix of sheltered (small community) and blinders, mostly because I filter everything out. I can't stand the constant stream of bullshit that is being thrown around the internet, and the offline world isn't much better about it, so I do my best to ignore it all on the basis of mental health. It won't make the bad things go away, but it helps to focus me on what's immediate and most importantly things I have control/influence over.

I didn't mean to imply that sexism has never happened anywhere for any reason, but that I feel powerless to do anything about it amidst these calls to action due to lack of proximity.

STEM seemed to be a hot topic for the OP. I completely agree with your assessment.

I agree that the -ism's are ridiculously complex issues with multiple layers of influence.

Bonus: I just laughed at the Fox News headline "Study: Women gaining weight because of less housework" because I can neither believe that someone would think that sort of study was necessary/not ludicrous nor that anyone in their right mind would want that displayed across their show. Thanks Mr. O'Reilly for proving me wrong.

Being a white heterosexual male does not automatically make you a sexist asshole. My personal aim in this topic discussion was never to guilt people into acting differently. I was just looking for a productive discussion and I believe that's what I got.

You're reaction concerns me because you are probably not alone and it might be a reason why this type of discussion makes people so uncomfortable. If you treat women respectfully as people then there is no blame and should be no guilt. I can understand your reaction though. I may be a woman but I'm still white and discussion around race can sometimes be difficult.

In regards to STEM it's a hot topic for me because it's something that's important to me. I don't expect others to feel the same or even if they do act on those feelings. I'm pro gay marriage but I don't walk in parades or anything. The only thing I can do really is when people say "That's so gay" to mean something like "That's so stupid" I respond by saying "That doesn't look heterosexual at all.". It's a small thing but the language bothered me so I do as much as I felt comfortable doing.

I am also in a position to hire and fire people at my place of employment so I try to be as aware as possible of my actions. I work in Brooklyn and my office is extremely diverse. It's tough to be sensitive to the world view of others without coming across like a lifeless politically correct drone.

The Fox News story is really an extreme example of the kind of things women like me deal with on a daily basis. Sometimes it's small things but it adds up over time. It's a complex problem with many influences but I feel strongly that that the only way to find solutions is open and honest conversation.

I am bumping this thread again before an entire month has elapsed and it is technically verboten.

I didn't participate in the Tropes thread for myriad reasons, but I'm sad to see it locked. Perhaps the commentary in the thread should have been strictly related to the video itself, but I feel the video was meant to drive a greater discussion and I think that's what was happening. In any case, by its very title this particular thread is directly about that greater discussion so up it comes.

I was also sad to see the Lounge thread locked. It looks like the thread in the Velvet Room is heading that way, too. To my mind, confining such subjects to the Soap Box implies that there is no real discussion to be had and Oxford-Style debate tactics are expected. Reading this very thread took me from a stance of "what's the big deal?" to actually understanding and empathizing with those to whom this is a big deal and I'm thankful for it. I wouldn't have found such a change of perspective in the Soap Box because I wouldn't have pursued it.

Mods, do what you will, but I really think locking this stuff away is the wrong move. Sexism in gaming/tech is part of the Zeitgeist and there is no getting away from that.

I'm going to close this with a handful of links that I hope will encourage further discussion.

To my mind, confining such subjects to the Soap Box implies that there is no real discussion to be had and Oxford-Style debate tactics are expected.

haha what

Soap Box isn't debate club, it's just people talking about politics and economics in pretty much the same way they talk about everything else on these forums.

and an FYI to Mortus: SB isn't actually subscriber-only, and the other thread would probably get a decent amount of activity since there hasn't been much discussion of non-healthcare women's issues lately.

Agreed. The culture that surrounds gaming is relevant to games, both from the perspective of a game consumer and a game developer. That it makes some people uncomfortable is a better reason to have it in the relevant forum.

I heard about that, though I didn't see it (because, really, anyone at PAX should have better things to do than go to the big publishers' shitty events, Bioware maybe excluded). I'm trying to understand the mindset here--like, it's literally-literally foreign to me. I'm glad PAX's management kicked the fucker out, hopefully permanently.

The only thing halfway decent guys can do is not accept this in their friends, fellow gamers, and the media--but I have an unpleasant feeling that we are outnumbered, if not by the actively shitty people but by the tacit collaborators like half that other thread.

1. Acknowledge female gamers exist in enough numbers to be considered members of the fractured community and are not oddities2. Acknowledge female gamers have an equal voice (you don't need to agree with what we say, just that we have a right to say it)3. Be able to discuss a topic about female gamers without dismissing their opinions or points of view without cause4. Get more girls into STEM5. Wait and hope that things will get better over time6. Hold gaming companies accountable for lack of female representation, how women are portrayed in their games, and marketing practices (note this does NOT mean companies should hire women just because they are women).7. Any male who says anything positive about female gamers should not be immediately dismissed as a "white knight"8. Acknowledge that not all female gaming conversations represent the entire community of female gamers. Just like not all male gamers are sexist assholes, not all female gamers represent the group in the most positive light

Here's the real reason these discussions do not go anywhere. Rational people are already doing the 8 above, as well as they can (#6 may have limited action points for most beyond "don't buy their games"). Irrational and bigoted people are not. This thread appeals to actual discourse with rational people, who may be offended that someone would think they are not already doing this or that what they are already doing is not enough, and tends to attract irrational and bigoted people who are not going to listen to the message and express their irrationality and bigotry. In other words, it's preaching to the choir and making a rational appeal to irrational actors at the same time. It is no wonder these threads die after 7 pages or get locked after 19 pages.

Now, maybe others reading and not posting get value out of the thoughts on the page. But, IMO, that would be better suited to an article than a discussion format, because the latter simply attracts the irrational actors and brings the discourse down.

Side note: the continual appeal to authority without evidence to back it up on both sides does not help. Trust me, you're sexist and Trust me, I'm not do not advance discourse.

Change also comes when people start questioning assumptions. These threads may not produce any sort of immediate, visible change, but when we're talking about attitudes and perceptions, I think they do help.